5 ms·

This bothers me a little bit > By clicking “Agree,” you consent to Slate’s Terms of Service and Privacy Policy and the use of technologies such as cookies by S

by janpot 8y ago

This bothers me a little bit > By clicking “Agree,” you consent to Slate’s Terms of Service and Privacy Policy and the use of technologies such as cookies by Slate and our partners to deliver relevant advertising on our site, in emails and across the Internet, to personalize content and perform site analytics. Please see our Privacy Policy for more information about our use of data, your rights, and how to withdraw consent. I need to consent to have your website show me "relevant advertising across the Internet". If you can't take my privacy seriously, how should I take your concerns about Google and privacy seriously?

simion314 8y ago
Same here, so I always close the tab.
- Flow 8y ago
  Probably it's too late. Or do they really load the scripts from Google et al after you click "Accept"?
  - davb 8y ago
    Surprisingly, before you click Agree they make no third party requests and only set one cookie (AB=1, presumably because I'm using an ad blocker) and one Session Storage value (slateFontsLoaded=true). Unlike Samsonite, who I recently discovered set large number of cookies and make a bunch of third party requests before you click on Agree.
tyingq 8y ago
It is funny that they load Google Analytics and Doubleclick. There's also trackers for Comscore and Amazon on the page.
ericintheloft2 8y ago
Same here. I just spend 3 minutes trying to figure out how to opt out, but couldn't find it in the walls of texts and links down the rabbit hole. Closed the tab.
Flow 8y ago
I leave or click the Reader Mode button in Safari. But my guess is that those cookies have already been set.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  I'm not sure why people "guess" when this is the easiest thing in the world to test. I jut tried and, apart from a basic anonymous-looking slate.com session cookie, no cookies are set until you click "Agree".
  - Flow 8y ago
    Because I was talking about sites in general with these dialoges, not just this specific site.
dpcx 8y ago
You speak as though an author on Slate.com has any actual say in what Slate.com does to set policy. It would be the same as if you read this article on any other "news site" - so why would you dismiss the author's concerns about privacy? Simply because they chose to use Slate.com as the outlet for their statement?
- jfoster 8y ago
  Author agreed to have their article published there.
- malvosenior 8y ago
  From the article: > If nothing else works, then at least I can vote with my feet—or my fingertips. If they were serious about privacy they could not write for Slate or at least comment on how the very site we're reading this on also has major privacy issues.
- asdkhadsj 8y ago
  > so why would you dismiss the author's concerns about privacy? Simply because they chose to use Slate.com as the outlet for their statement? In fairness, that sounds fairly reasonable. I don't know much about Slate (and the advertising consent makes me hesitant to click it), but if I'm an author wanting to write about privacy concerns, and I have Google publish me (be it by Blogger or some other medium), wouldn't my article feel a bit.. odd? I'd be asking you to set aside your privacy concerns so you can read my post about why you should be concerned about privacy. I'm not saying that's what's happening here, I'm not even clicking the article based on the silly terms. Yet, these comments make me feel it's similar in concept. Why should we step aside our privacy so we can discuss privacy? The content is on a less than stellar medium for privacy discussions, at the very least.
- janpot 8y ago
  Just like he has alternatives available for Google products that respect his privacy more. He has alternatives available for slate that respect my privacy more. He simply chooses to dismiss my concerns about privacy by picking slate. Why can't I dismiss his concerns about privacy then?
dwighttk 8y ago
I guess my ad blocker blocked that
driverdan 8y ago
NoScript blocks that nicely. The page looks fine without JS.

by janpot 8y ago

simion314 8y ago

Same here, so I always close the tab.

Flow 8y ago
Probably it's too late. Or do they really load the scripts from Google et al after you click "Accept"?
- davb 8y ago
  Surprisingly, before you click Agree they make no third party requests and only set one cookie (AB=1, presumably because I'm using an ad blocker) and one Session Storage value (slateFontsLoaded=true). Unlike Samsonite, who I recently discovered set large number of cookies and make a bunch of third party requests before you click on Agree.

tyingq 8y ago

It is funny that they load Google Analytics and Doubleclick. There's also trackers for Comscore and Amazon on the page.

ericintheloft2 8y ago

Same here. I just spend 3 minutes trying to figure out how to opt out, but couldn't find it in the walls of texts and links down the rabbit hole. Closed the tab.

Flow 8y ago

I leave or click the Reader Mode button in Safari. But my guess is that those cookies have already been set.

SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
I'm not sure why people "guess" when this is the easiest thing in the world to test. I jut tried and, apart from a basic anonymous-looking slate.com session cookie, no cookies are set until you click "Agree".
- Flow 8y ago
  Because I was talking about sites in general with these dialoges, not just this specific site.

dpcx 8y ago

You speak as though an author on Slate.com has any actual say in what Slate.com does to set policy. It would be the same as if you read this article on any other "news site" - so why would you dismiss the author's concerns about privacy? Simply because they chose to use Slate.com as the outlet for their statement?

jfoster 8y ago
Author agreed to have their article published there.
malvosenior 8y ago
From the article: > If nothing else works, then at least I can vote with my feet—or my fingertips. If they were serious about privacy they could not write for Slate or at least comment on how the very site we're reading this on also has major privacy issues.
asdkhadsj 8y ago
> so why would you dismiss the author's concerns about privacy? Simply because they chose to use Slate.com as the outlet for their statement? In fairness, that sounds fairly reasonable. I don't know much about Slate (and the advertising consent makes me hesitant to click it), but if I'm an author wanting to write about privacy concerns, and I have Google publish me (be it by Blogger or some other medium), wouldn't my article feel a bit.. odd? I'd be asking you to set aside your privacy concerns so you can read my post about why you should be concerned about privacy. I'm not saying that's what's happening here, I'm not even clicking the article based on the silly terms. Yet, these comments make me feel it's similar in concept. Why should we step aside our privacy so we can discuss privacy? The content is on a less than stellar medium for privacy discussions, at the very least.
janpot 8y ago
Just like he has alternatives available for Google products that respect his privacy more. He has alternatives available for slate that respect my privacy more. He simply chooses to dismiss my concerns about privacy by picking slate. Why can't I dismiss his concerns about privacy then?

dwighttk 8y ago

I guess my ad blocker blocked that

driverdan 8y ago

NoScript blocks that nicely. The page looks fine without JS.